Flow was a great first suggestion for the new "Green Light" section. It is a wonderful experience, not like any "animated" film I've ever seen. I second that recommendation enthusiastically!
I am not aware of President Obama taking bribes by way of a crypto scam that set up by him, his wife, his family, and the sons of cronies; of he and his family tying agreements with autocracies to commercial transactions of immense benefit to him and his family; or of gaining wealth by any illegal or improper means. Perhaps the idea of a Black man becoming wealthy from his earnings as a writer and speaker and the benefits that inevitably accrue from world-wide fame is abhorrent in itself?
I hope that wasn’t directed at me. I was just pointing out from the article I attached that being elected POTUS (or even VPOTUS) has been a path to great wealth for many who had little wealth prior to their election. How that turned into “Perhaps the idea of a black man becoming wealthy… is abhorrent…”
Yikes! I only referred to Obama’s number because 2 years ago, when the article was written, he was not yet a centimillionaire. God bless him for building that kind of wealth!
I get tired of reading excuses like this. Try to point out things like this about Trump and they are compared with Biden or Obama. What's the point, that three wrongs make a right? Why stop with Obama and Biden? Most presidents in history have benefitted in some way from having been in office. Grant had people lined up to help him, at least in part because he was a crummy businessman. No one else compares with Trump. Are people aware that he is still making private deals today, such as in crypto currency? Only he gets to adjust the rules. Both Biden and Obama have gotten crap for their deals. This is about Trump who, who as far as I'm concerned, stands out.
Thank you Laurence. I seem to be having trouble making my point. You have made it very simple. “Most presidents in history have benefitted in some way from having been in office.” I’m not trying to give anyone “crap”.
Trump's net worth fell in his 1st four years, but skyrocketed in the next four mostly from using his name in crypto investments. I would not shed a tear if crypto wealth disappeared the same way it came. Talk about “money for nothing”…
You're welcome. I got your point right away. I admit to being biased where Trump is concerned. I think we tend to over analyze some things to death. I have limited training in either economics or psychology. But I learned to read early in life. The most basic of common sense tells us that no one that has ever been in the White House compares with Trump. To him, the White House is just another business deal, complicated by a self ego that needs others to worship him. To see so many worship him just because they agree with what he is doing and think he actually cares about them is disheartening.
If we are going to indulge in fantasy scenarios about Canada getting incorporated into the US as one or more states, then I will add another positive:
State Health Care. Getting this going is extremely hard. Canada could keep its system and fund it with what would become its state taxes. IMO, the best path to national health care in the US is to have a state implement it successfully. At a national level in the US, the issues of funding and deciding what is covered and what is not are too thorny to overcome. Consider a few years ago when Cook County tried to implement a soda tax. Cook county does operate a hospital, so arguably the health of its citizens is its business, but the blowback was so much that they had to backtrack. I have read the same thing happened in New York.
At some point we as a people will decide that tackling our outrageously expensive healthcare system is more important than using it as a cudgel against those thought to not be working hard enough to improve their lives.
Maybe. There is a strong preference to stay with the "Devil we know". Some hard decisions would have be made, and I would bet there are compromises you would not accept. For example, would you prefer national health care that does not have do abortions, or keep the system we have?
No matter what side you are on of various issues, you would have to accept that there will be times when the government which levies taxes to pay for it and decides on the quality and quantity of service available will be run by people who you very strongly disagree with.
So if you think national healthcare is a good idea in the US, then tell me you would want it implemented, and all of those hard decisions made by the current Congress and President.
Plus it would be half the cost, once we rid ourselves of the crooked insurance companies & forced the drug makers to price our drugs the same as they do in Europe. They would then be forced to have price increases in Europe, because we in America are paying for 100% of all research & development of new drugs!
I have no argument with either you or John. Both of you are making good points. The problem as I see it is NIMBY. I am, for the present, set with my medical care. That doesn't stop me from having some sensitivity for those not in my position. I don't need Obamacare. Does that mean I am opposed to it? I remember the problems that existed before Obamacare, of people without insurance flooding emergency rooms and clinics closing left and right. I have personally read comments from conservatives that proper healthcare is not a right, that if people cannot afford to see doctors, they should have run their lives better. Are we becoming that much an uncaring society? I work with homeless. They have medical conditions that have worsened because they can't get the most basic of care or prescriptions. Should they have made better life choices? Absolutely. Most of them would be the first to admit it. So what! I thought we were a caring, Christian nation. That's what MAGAs tell me whenever the discussion arises. Is that what Jesus said- don't help anyone that screwed up their own lives? I've heard the excuses. Canadians have to wait forever for appointments while we have the best care in the world. Explain that to Americans that can't even afford to see a doctor or get a basic prescription until a simple problem becomes an emergency. Actually, the biggest problem I see with Obamacare is that you get what you pay for. The cheapest policies are pretty basic. And many of the basic policy providers are as legitimate as three dollar bills. I deal with it all the time.
Cook County actually did adopt that insane tax on pop. Even Costco, which prides itself on keeping the hot dog & drink combo at $1.50 no matter what, raised the price in its stores in Cook County to $1.65 to cover the extra taxes!
It was a truly stupid tax & I was one who would go to Lake County to buy pop to avoid the tax!
Perhaps we would be better served by considering ways to Incorporate the US into Canada. I think this is no less cuckoo than vice versa. Not that they want us, of course, but we shouldn’t want them either.
LOL. Yeah, that would have some impact on Canadian politics. This reminds of of the South Park season when Mr. Garrison was running for president (as a clear reference to Trump) and wanted to build a wall to keep out Canadians, but then Canada built a wall to keep out Americans first.
If you remember a few weeks back, the British PM presented Trump with an "unprecedented" invitation from King Charles for a SECOND state dinner. I mean, in the hundreds of years the British Empire has existed, nobody has ever been offered a SECOND state dinner.
It doesn't take much to flatter our fat-ass fascist leader...
Your one line about that nut in Huntley having problems with the town over her signs was way too short. She's rabid trumpie & is claiming they're after her because of her insane politics, not because she refuses to follow the established village sign codes & other laws.
Typical wing nut, lying her ass off because she got caught breaking the law.
In other insane news, ICE Barbie is trying to scam a brand new $50 million Gulfstream jet out of the Coast Guard's budget to replace a perfectly good older Gulfstream jet she uses, just because she wants a new one, even the Coast Guard budget is way too small, it has only one functioning ocean going icebreaker right now & needs many new other ships for its tiny fleet.
The Catholic Church tells its parishioners that contraception is a sin, and then conveniently collect tuition from those parishioners for each child attending one of their schools. They don't hold a monopoly on opposing contraception, but they are probably the best at profiting off it.
The same morally superior people who attack trans women for using the bathroom, have a hissy fit over drag queens reading to kids, want to end gay marriage, etc., and now are back to trying to ban pornography over its “prurient content” — those people also voted en masse three times for Donald Trump who bragged about sexually assaulting women and walking in on underage girls as they changed clothes at his beauty pageant, was held liable for raping one woman, and was credibly accused of raping others, including at least one 13-year-old girl as well as his then-wife Ivana.
Those people can sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Not that I want to get pounded on here, but I would welcome some way of making it so that people (kids) can’t get porn at the click of a mouse. Doesn’t that availability cause harm to kids?
What about kids who grow up on farms and see animals copulating, and then later on giving birth? Does it harm those kids to see that? I once saw two giraffes having sex (or trying to) at the Brookfield Zoo. Should the parent who were present have covered their children's eyes?
I will bite my tongue and simply say that there is a difference between animals on a farm or zoo having sex, and what is available online. I am afraid that some of what is online can give kids (especially boys) an unrealistic idea of what to expect from a partner.
One's role as a parent is to TALK with them (not AT them) about sexuality, relationships, respect, and consequences of sex. One can assume that by the age of 10 or so, they have seen some pornography. Then is when you can continue the conversations you have had since they were 2 about sex and broaden the discussion to include the unhealthy aspects of pornography. If you do this without shaming them or guilt-tripping them about having watched it, you will have a chance to reset their expectations.
Kind of sad that by the age of 10 they’ve seen some pornography. That’s the age I was when a neighbor showed me Playboy. But what they can see today can be very disturbing.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest parents have a responsibility to keep their kids away from harmful things, and if that means limiting the amount of time said kids spend online or not giving them devices with Internet access before they're old enough, so be it.
Well, yes pornography is not a particularly healthy media content for children. BUT, it is MY job as a parent to determine what my child reads, sees, interacts with, etc. I did not and will not outsource my parenting decisions to that rabid bunch of "Christians" who are hyper-focused on other people's genitalia and what they are doing with them.
I have always wondered about online providers posting warnings about prurient content and underage not allowed to enter. How do they know whose hands are on the mouse or looking at the screen? If they did know, would that raise some pretty serious privacy concerns?
You're missing the point, John. Wouldn't you much rather have a hetero sex pervert reading to your children or using the same bathroom? There wouldn't be any point to Trump reading to your kids. Would the vocabulary level of the books be too high?
IF Canada as a whole became the 51st state, it would eke out California as the most populous state. You'd have to figure that it would add 2 Democratic Senators as well as skew heavily towards Democrat in the House, with 50+ seats should easily shift the balance in the House. Not sure the GOP would be welcoming the political re-alignment. Perhaps the Dems should sarcastically endorse the plan and watch Trumps cronys on Fox be forced to actually state the political calamity it would cause their party.
I heartily agree. I was one of the few that voted that I would like to see Canada joins as 8 states. I answered as I did solely on the basis of US political calculus - rather than the moral correctness of joining the 2 countries. (Canada is a sovereign nation, and the US has absolutely no right to stick its nose into our northern neighbor's business.) But from a US political perspective, like you, I think that a large majority of the new "Canadian" states (except for Alberta - Canada's Texas) would lean heavily towards the democratic/liberal tradition (I use those terms philosophically) and would then fall into the Dem camps - counterbalancing the current right-weighted makeup of the current US states.
I answered similarly, although my focus was less on adding more liberals and more on adding more sane people. Also, I maybe misinterpreted the question to represent a voluntary combination of the two nations, rather than the US unilaterally “taking over”.
I definitely oppose anything that is not agreed to by a vote of the two countries.
In discussion in this forum, I'm only preaching to the choir; none of you readers advocates the U.S. forcibly annexing Canada. But in the Hands Off protest march April 5 in Chicago, I was proud to carry a sign reading 'E. Jean Carroll, Greenland, and Canada agree: "No" means "NO!!!" '
I love it! I can't wait to see the look on Trump's face when someone explains it to him. Even many Canadian conservatives are liberal by American standards.
I remember Dr. Arwady's firing distinctly because I found it so shocking at the time. It was one of Johnson's most Trumpian acts, disposing of an expert so overqualified for her position that we were lucky to have her in the first place.
I couldn't help noticing this headline accompanying an op-ed in today's NYT about the firing of the librarian of Congress: "Why do we tear down the best among us and lie about it?" Seems applicable to the Arwady situation -- though I know Mr. Zorn would contend that "lie" is too strong. Maybe.
I had to read that silly fictional book in Hebrew School. I still have my copy of Magill's Linear School Bible somewhere. Half the pages are in Hebrew with the English translation on the other side, but the Song of Solomon is solely in Hebrew because the prudes thought we were too young for that "porn"!
It’s because most if not all of the Jews I knew growing up (I was one) didn’t seem to believe in God or the Bible, that when I got serious about faith I became Catholic.
In my neighborhood- West Pullman- I knew of only 3 other Jewish families. I learned early in life that my people killed Jesus. Or was it me personally? I have trouble remembering traumatic events?
I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Dogma where Linda Fiorentino is sitting in Mass with a bunch of bored parishioners doing anything but paying attention to the sermon.
My mother was surprised when, post-vatican II, we were encouraged to actually read the Bible on our own. When she was growing up, even nuns were discouraged from reading the Bible except under the supervising eye of priests...
The rigid hierarchy of the Catholic church has always been about control and telling people what they need to believe as opposed to encouraging a personal relationship with God. Although it was a good number of decades ago, I intended a Catholic grade school, high school and completed at my degree studies at a Catholic university, and never had a single class on Scripture. If people were reading Scripture, they may actually learn more about things the Catholic Church deliberately avoids like the fact that Peter who is recognized by the Catholic Church as the first pope, was undeniably a married man with specific Scriptural references to Jesus healing his mother-in-law, and Peter traveling with his wife to the Christian communities. And that would cast shade on the Catholic doctrine of mandatory celibacy for the priesthood which was promulgated by the church to capture the wealth of medieval Bishops who in many cases had their own castles and armies.
Part of the reason that Luther was seen as such a serious threat to Catholic hierarchy control was that he translated the Bible into German to make it available for everyday people to read, where is it had been pretty much available only to people who read Greek or Latin. As an Evangelical, I now see Scripture as God's revelation of himself to us in this world, and my daily scripture reading is one of the most peaceful moments of my day.
Hi Phillip - I agree with you on that. Most of my family and many of my friends are people of good heart who continue to identify as Catholic, and I know that some of them have been in study groups at their church. My study of the history of Catholicism revealed that a great deal of Doctrine - Purgatory, the Inquisition, mandatory celibacy to name a few, have no scriptural basis and were promulgated for purposes of acquiring wealth and power for the church. Insistence on the maintenance of priestly celibacy, when Pew Research revealed that fewer than 50% of priest actually remain celibate, resulted in a priest shortage, the admission of pedophiles to seminaries and the worldwide cover up of priestly pedophile abuse. When an organization's worldwide response right up to the very top to criminally sinful activities was to protect the institution instead of protecting the victims, there is
something gravely wrong.
Leo may prove to be a very good leader. And there are many wonderful Bishops and Priests with Christian hearts, and of course, millions of Catholic people with wonderful Christian hearts. But the doctrine being taught is very flawed, and the organization is in need of reformation. So my faith journey has led me to a church that teaches non-judgmental loving acceptance of all based upon Scripture teaching.
There’s an old saying “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. We should all strive to not be the weakest link in what ever group we are in. Also, some people (in religion or politics) believe that the ends justify the means, but those means often hurt people and/or drive them away.
You realize of course, David, that by exposing hypocrisy you probably just offended a number of people. Faith is a lovely word- until you remember that it can also mean don't think for yourself and simply accept things you don't understand.
Hey Laurence - it's never my intent to offend anyone. And I readily recognize that there are many clergy and people who identify as Catholic who have beautiful Christian hearts. But after experiencing the rigid dogma and understanding the troublesome history of the organization, I am compelled to call out how the organization and some of the hierarchy have subverteded the organizational purported purpose of faith and God for purposes of power and control. The worldwide priest pedophile scandal provided clear example of that.
I do not judge anyone, and certainly do not intend to besmirch anyone who identifies as Catholic. But just as I enjoy a respectful debate of political views with people
differing with me, I am happy to engage in theological debate on religious doctrine and practices. My personal belief is that our possibility of eternal life with God after we leave this world is wholly dependent upon developing a personal relationship with God and accepting his free gift of Grace. And that is what I wish for everyone!
Two things, David. Religion is the type of touchy subject where it is easy of offend others, whether or not you meant to do it. True believers don’t question anything, especially negative interpretations of their beliefs. Second, it is much like those that use selected quotes from the Founding Fathers to justify their political beliefs. We can’t question the authors of the Bible. They are dead. Based on language differences and differences in interpretation, we can’t even be sure exactly what they said and meant. I realize you meant to educate. It doesn’t matter. You took on a dangerous subject. Fortunately most in this forum are intelligent enough and open minded enough to allow it.
Laurence - I recognize that you are totally correct my friend. Growing up Catholic, we were admonished not to talk about religion or precisely that reason.
But I'd like to make a distinction between religion which I think pertains to an organized set of beliefs and doctrines that come primarily from religious denominations, and Faith which I Define as a personal relationship with God. People who affiliate with denominations all too often get tied up into the denominational doctrines as opposed to personal faith relationship. It is for that reason that I believe virtually every mainstream religious denomination has been losing membership over recent decades while non-denominational churches that emphasize personal relationship with God are growing by Leaps and Bounds across the country.
When I engage in discussion on faith, it is not at all about proselytizing people to a particular set of beliefs. Rather, it is exploring relationship with god. This is something that is the most precious thing I have in this world that gives me undeniable Joy in every season of my life. And for this reason I hope to share this Joy with others. As well as what I believe to be the path to Eternal salvation through that faith relationship.
Sorry for going on about this, but it is something I do find much happiness in discussing with others. I wish you a wonderful day and weekend my friend!
I should know better than to get into this discussion with anyone as religious as you. My point about faith is people automatically accepting things that may not even make sense to them. We are supposed to do this because no one knows the workings of God. We are also taught that in the Jewish faith. I glad you are happy with your faith and that it offers you something joyous. I guess I am simply too rational and think too much. To me the most positive thing about religion in general is offering a moral basis for how to treat each other. Atheists would claim this could be done through ordinary common sense. I think history proves otherwise. Either way, I can’t automatically accept everything on faith, however you wish to describe it.
The idea of annexing Canada is a ludicrous populist talking point, inspired by Trump's admiration of Putin. We should not be dignifying it by serious discussion. Even before we get to a "fairness test", which has never been much of a hurdle for people working in and supporting this administration, there should be a sanity test, which this idea fails immediately. Why not annex Russia? Sarah Palin can see it from her house! It will never and should never happen.
So what if he keeps repeating it? This is Trump's well-practiced skill at shifting the Overton window - repeat a ridiculous thought until people start discussing it as if it was normal. This is how we got presidential immunity. We should not keep falling for it.
If we talk about US state populations, we should address the Senate and the Electoral College first: a super majority of 60 Senators are only representing about 40% of US population, with the power to stop any legislation, and with Washington DC and Puerto Rico not having any representation in that chamber. A Montana resident's vote for president is worth about three times that of a California resident's. We should address these problems first before talking about drastically expanding territory and population.
Hey, I think the idea if annexing Russia has great appeal. Lots of natural resources and a quick conclusion of the war against Ukraine. Then we could think about annexing Ukraine … …
To really understand it, a reading of history is necessary. What was the Monroe Doctrine and just how did we go about appropriating a good deal of the Southwest, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, Samoa, Native American land, and others I may have left out? Wanting to take over Canada and Greenland doesn't excuse Trump. But it's not exactly new in American history.
Sure, that used to be the way of the world when powerful nations took over land and populations by force or coercion. We're not in those times anymore, we've come to appreciate the stability of borders and sovereign countries with their own entrenched national identities, systems of government, customs of doing trade and business, etc. Historical precedent can be a very poor argument - we used to have slavery also, no one would even think to propose bringing that back now.
I totally agree that the firing of Arwady was such an obviously vindictive act as a payback for her for push to open schools against the CTU's desire to work from home. So Trumpian!! But the problem of "not getting into the weeds of when schools should have been reopened" is a mistake made by journalists, as well as all Democrats and the Biden administration. If Democrats in congress, or the Biden administration's CDC would have done a transparent and scientific look at the decisions made in managing Covid it would have shown the voters that they really did "follow the science" and help us all learn lessons for future pandemics. It would have helped de-fang the far right to show that Democratic governing bodies could evaluate scientific data and admit mistakes and might have increased support for the vaccines and the wearing of masks. At what point in a pandemic is it so widespread that closeings even matter would be good to know for the future? The learning loss and mental health toll for kids has been well documented. The fact that the majority of school districts had opened up throughout the suburbs and nation with no negative affects, while the CTU was still insisting on closings was ridiculous to most parents and voters.
And about his disagreement with Arwady over mental health policy, I wish someone would do an in-depth look at the effectiveness of the reopening of the clinics vs. the Rahm and Lightfoot model of delivering services citywide through the not-for-profit agencies. Other than hiring more city employees, spending on fixed structures, and future pensions costs, are the numbers of clients being served actually increasing or decreasing? Are outcomes any different?
Mike Janssen is a Chicagoland treasure. His warm delivery and down-home style is exceeded only by his choice of just the right words to best best describe what is and will be happening weather-wise. He is hands-down the best in his profession currently on local air, and (IMHO) should have succeeded Tom Skilling as WGN's prime meteorologist.
Would someone kindly explain the “Packers” quip for those of us who don’t really follow football (especially off-season). Given the quip’s ranking, I must not be alone. Or maybe it just isn’t very funny.
And while I’m at it, while I would never suggest limiting expressions of contempt for Elon Musk, “Quip of the Week” is hardly the “new” name for this feature any more.
I don't agree with banning porn generally of course, but I gotta say that I'm pretty sympathetic with attempts to rein it in. See this, for example, from NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof about that lovely Canadian company, Pornhub:
The "supposedly 'wholesome Pornhub' attracts 3.5 billion visits a month, more than Netflix, Yahoo or Amazon. Pornhub rakes in money from almost three billion ad impressions a day. One ranking lists Pornhub as the 10th-most-visited website in the world.
"Yet there’s another side of the company: Its site is infested with rape videos. It monetizes child rapes, revenge pornography, spy cam videos of women showering, racist and misogynist content, and footage of women being asphyxiated in plastic bags. A search for 'girls under18' (no space) or '14yo' leads in each case to more than 100,000 videos. Most aren’t of children being assaulted, but too many are."
Material is more disgusting -- much more of it would surely qualify as "obscene" under First Amendment standards if anyone tried to enforce that line -- and far more widely available and incredibly easily available to kids like never before. This is a new world, and it's probably messing people up, especially young guys, who increasingly waste their lives playing video games and watching porn.
I don't know enough about proposed solutions and/or how well they would work, but I think seeking to rein in the current porn free-for-all -- especially as it relates to kids' access and unauthorized and/or actually criminal content -- would be a great and politically popular idea. Unpopular opinion?
Speaking of Canada, I said I would welcome annexing Canada for the simple reason that I interpreted the question as assuming that they would *want* to join the U.S. in this hypothetical. Why wouldn't we want to adopt Canada? It's a lovely, thriving place with lots of lovely people. It would be economically beneficial. And, if, like me, you're a Democrat, you would be very happy to add 8 blue states! The healthcare issue would be a tangle. I imagine that Canadian "states" would continue to administer their current programs in some form. I'm sure there are complications I'm not thinking of but, on a first cut, I can't really see any downside from a U.S. perspective.
I readily agree that there are problems with exploitation and access when it comes to porn.
My beef is with sanctimonious hypocrites who have nothing better to do than police the private interests of people obviously less pious than themselves.
Since the dawn of civilization, humans have depicted nudity and sex acts in various ways, from artwork on display in museums to middle school bathroom stalls. And since the advent of photography, and especially smartphones, people have willingly posed for pictures and videos of themselves naked and/or getting it on. Those trying to put an end to it might as well be tilting at windmills.
JakeH, there are already laws prohibiting possession of child pornography, revenge porn, photographing people in the shower without their consent, sexual assault, and the other bad things you cite in regard to porn hub. So this law proposed by Republicans is not about making those things unlawful. It’s about making it illegal to show, or possess, or watch anything which “appeals to the prurient interest in [among other things] sex.” Now I looked up “prurient” and it is defined as “having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.” Now I don’t consume things very often which appeal to the prurient interest in sex. I suppose in the last ten years, maybe twice? I watched the coming of age movie Blue Is The Warmest Color on Netflix, and I’m currently reading The Rosy Crucifixion trilogy by Henry Miller. Blue Is The Warmest Color had a number of very beautiful and very explicit lesbian sex scenes. And, of course, Henry Miller, one of my favorite authors and thinkers, includes detailed descriptions of his sexual exploits (including detailed descriptions of his penis and his sexual partners’ vaginas and labia in various states) along with absolutely beautiful stream of consciousness and philosophy, in his partly autobiographical novels that seek to tell and explain the meaning and mysteries of the human condition.
This Republican proposed law really seems to be all about control, and seems to be related to their obsession about controlling female sexuality. They want women to have sex only for purposes of procreation. So they want to outlaw books and movies with a prurient interest in sex, outlaw abortion, outlaw contraception, etc.
Sexual intimacy and the desire and need for sexual intimacy is a part of the human condition. It’s wild; it’s beautiful; it’s mysterious, and it’s lovely. And this law, which seeks to regulate, limit, and control how people express themselves about this very personal aspect of what it means to be human is really fascism on steroids.
I agree with just about everything you say. I should have made clear that I'm not in favor of a general obscenity ban, which would be too vague to police and have an unacceptable chilling effect.
Slight disagreement perhaps: I hear you say at the outset that we already have adequate laws on this subject. I doubt it for two reasons: One, it's too easy for kids to access very dark and explicit material. Two, it's too easy to post, disseminate, find, and download videos that depict real criminal activity, videos the app directs users to and profits from. That's what the article was about.
Would you support a law similar to Utah's that requires age verification for Utah users of adult sites? Pretty sure I would. While it's true that you can get around location restrictions with a VPN, it's probably easier for parents to block VPN use on their kids' devices than to block all adult sites. Pornhub decided to block access to all Utah addresses rather than comply with the law and face potential liability. To which I say fine.
As to the second point, I have what I fear may be a very unpopular opinion, but I lean toward treating platforms more like "publishers," like newspapers, who have some legal responsibly for what they publish (for example, for libel), and less like common carriers, like the mail or the phone, where they have zero liability for the content of the materials or communications they deliver. Our laws now treat platforms like the latter, as I understand it. But none of the major user-generated content platforms, like Pornhub, are merely passive bulletin boards. Rather, they actively *curate*. Their ability to curate is better than ever with AI, I assume, and they will deploy those tools to the maximum extent to generate engagement and thus profits.
That sounds like "publishing" to me. I suggest that they should be required -- consistent with state-of-the-art technology -- to use those same tools to block, flag, whatever suspicious material and be held to a high standard. I'm not saying that they must guarantee perfect results. No system of content moderation is perfect, and there's too much content to moderate by hand. But we could hold them to their procedures and practices. As things stand, I suspect there's a lot of looking the other way, a lot of, hey, it's not our problem.
From the Kristof piece:
"After a 15-year-old girl went missing in Florida, her mother found her on Pornhub — in 58 sex videos. Sexual assaults on a 14-year-old California girl were posted on Pornhub and were reported to the authorities not by the company but by a classmate who saw the videos....
"I came across many videos on Pornhub that were recordings of assaults on unconscious women and girls. The rapists would open the eyelids of the victims and touch their eyeballs to show that they were nonresponsive.
"Pornhub profited this fall from a video of a naked woman being tortured by a gang of men in China. It is monetizing video compilations with titles like 'Screaming Teen,' 'Degraded Teen' and 'Extreme Choking.' Look at a choking video and it may suggest also searching for 'She Can’t Breathe.'
"It should be possible to be sex positive and Pornhub negative."
I agree.
I find what I hear about platforms these days -- even non-porn ones like X -- extremely disturbing. Videos of actual deaths for example, for people to gawk at and laugh at. A popular subreddit some years ago was called "Watch People Die," and included countless actual violent deaths, but don't worry -- deaths of children would not be depicted, unless it was accidental that is. One video posted: a teen killing himself with a shotgun on YouTube live with the video lingering on the scene for a half hour until his mom found him.
I admit that I don't know how to do it exactly -- I need to think more about it and know more about it -- but I'm inclined to, as I say, rein in the tsunami of coarse shit that the digital age has unleashed, at least somewhat more than we do already, but still within First Amendment limits. I suspect it's possible.
I think the enormous challenges faced by social media platforms trying (and failing spectacularly) to moderate content is instructive here. For starters, back when sites like Facebook actually tried to tackle the problem they had employees wading through that tsunami of shit as you put it, and those employees in many cases were left traumatized by the experience. So that wasn't sustainable.
Maybe AI could help, but again someone would have to find objectionable content to train the AI on first, then monitor its effectiveness at tracking down and culling such content. That might not be sustainable either.
Yes, I read those stories. The fact that it's so traumatizing to review what platforms publish that it verges on unethical to ask anyone to do it I think might support rather than refute my intuitions here. It suggests that the platforms are just that "unsafe." I don't like the overuse of that word these days, but here I think it's apt. I've heard on numerous occasions that vile content, death videos for example, is delivered to one's, say, X feed -- an apt word; we're as pigs at the trough, maws agape -- without asking and without viewing habits that would seem to suggest it.
I don't know enough about how hard it would be to use AI here or if it would require much human interaction with the content. As I say, I don't have a specific policy. I like the sound of the EARN IT Act, I must admit, but I would be open to counterarguments on any specific policies.
I got around to finally reading the Kristof article you posted, and I can't argue with the recommendations he made, such as only allowing uploads from verified accounts and barring downloads. Add to that a requirement that all persons seen in the video are certified over 18 and consent to the video being posted (which is required for professional porn productions already). That would at least start to rein in the exploitation side of the issue.
As for limiting kids' viewing the material, I still say that's the job of parents, but good luck with that. My friends and I regularly found ways to get our hands on magazines like Playboy and Penthouse before we were even teenagers, so I can imagine trying to stop kids from finding or viewing such videos/pictures today would be no small task.
I liked the sound of those ideas too, but I share Kristof's uncertainty about the workability of various solutions. I just think we should be working on it. As for kids' access, yes, you could circumvent restrictions of yore -- you could try to buy a Playboy and hope the young clerk didn't care, you could shoplift one, you could steal one from grandpa's stash, a kid in 6th grade could pass it around, not admitting to any of those or to being that kid -- but Playboy, even Penthouse, is/was ludicrously quaint by today's standards. We're talking now about material no Kroch's & Brentano's would ever sell! I mean, years ago, I would have been like, yes, Playboy subscriptions for all 13-year-olds, and be sure to read the Norman Mailer interview and the John Updike short story, I'll expect a report at dinner. It's a much different world. I'm not sure that age verification online + kid-friendly devices that bar VPNs wouldn't work.
JakeH, I always get such interesting replies from you! You say you are against a general obscenity ban, but that’s exactly what this law proposed by the Republicans is. It would make it illegal to show, or possess, or watch anything which “appeals to the prurient interest in [among other things] sex.”
At the end of the day, if we are talking about what sexual materials people show, author, watch, see, or read, it is my view that it is up to individuals, including parents and children, to decide what they want to see, watch, or read. We police ourselves, and, as parents, depending on the age of our children, we police our children. But I think the best way to have kids grow up with a healthy understanding about sex and its consequences, is to have frank, open, and honest discussions with them about sex, its physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences, the necessity of consent, and so forth.
I’m sticking to my view that this proposed Republican law is all about control of women.
Changing the law so that internet sites may be held liable for torts such as invasion of privacy, defamation, and the like is an entirely different concept which, if such a change in the law were drafted appropriately, I might not oppose.
It seems I still haven't made myself clear, which I'm sure is entirely my fault. My initial post was not intended in any way to voice agreement with this particular proposed law, which I do not agree with at all for the reasons you say and I affirmed at the beginning of my reply. It is indeed a general obscenity ban, which I oppose.
I meant to quickly move past this particular bad law to the general issue involved -- that of regulation of materials that may fall into that obscenity category or may be adjacent to it (either better, as in, merely dark, icky porn, or worse, actual rape videos), particularly as it relates to kids' easy access to it and platforms' promotion of videos of actual sex crimes.
So, while I don't agree with this law, I see more than a kernel of truth to real concerns that might underlie it, and I'm not satisfied that our current laws are adequate to meet the problem. I don't think we should look at the current situation as we may be used to looking at it. That is, these stuffed shirts just want to control people's lives, probably because they're repressing and projecting their own depraved hearts, and they should just learn to be cool. And the kids thing is just an excuse.
That may well describe many people on "that side," but it doesn't describe me at all. At least, I hope not! Put it this way: it seemed very reasonable to me to restrict kids' purchase of porn in yesteryear. Since then, the porn has gotten worse -- with a decidedly and more ubiquitously vile, gleefully misogynistic and violent and degrading edge, so I'm given to believe, not to mention the truly criminal acts -- while at the same time it's become exceedingly easy to access it without restriction. That, to me, suggests a need to recalibrate, to revisit the rules of the road to move in the direction of achieving the non-onerous regulation of yesteryear but translated, insofar as possible, to today's world. I merely throw out these intuitions, including that it must be possible to do that within the First Amendment.
I will definitely check out Flow. Animation does not live up to its potential in our culture, IMO.
Flow was a great first suggestion for the new "Green Light" section. It is a wonderful experience, not like any "animated" film I've ever seen. I second that recommendation enthusiastically!
How to become a billionaire. 1. Pretend you are very rich. 2. Become POTUS. 3. Perpetrate every scam known to human kind. 4. Ka-ching!
Or you could just say:
How to become a centimillionaire:
2. Become POTUS.
https://www.aol.com/15-presidents-net-worth-taking-110300987.html
Obama is now $250 million. Up from the $70 million 2 years ago.
I am not aware of President Obama taking bribes by way of a crypto scam that set up by him, his wife, his family, and the sons of cronies; of he and his family tying agreements with autocracies to commercial transactions of immense benefit to him and his family; or of gaining wealth by any illegal or improper means. Perhaps the idea of a Black man becoming wealthy from his earnings as a writer and speaker and the benefits that inevitably accrue from world-wide fame is abhorrent in itself?
Wow M,
I hope that wasn’t directed at me. I was just pointing out from the article I attached that being elected POTUS (or even VPOTUS) has been a path to great wealth for many who had little wealth prior to their election. How that turned into “Perhaps the idea of a black man becoming wealthy… is abhorrent…”
Yikes! I only referred to Obama’s number because 2 years ago, when the article was written, he was not yet a centimillionaire. God bless him for building that kind of wealth!
I didn't see the point in it unless it was "they are all the same."
trump (read "Lucky loser") was a reality star posing as a very wealthy man before the bribes, scams. etc. that have made him unimaginably wealthy.
btw, President Obama was not poor when he entered the WH (best-selling books that he wrote himself).
You are correct! Before he entered the race, Money Magazine estimated Obama's net worth at $1.3 million. Hardly a pauper.
I get tired of reading excuses like this. Try to point out things like this about Trump and they are compared with Biden or Obama. What's the point, that three wrongs make a right? Why stop with Obama and Biden? Most presidents in history have benefitted in some way from having been in office. Grant had people lined up to help him, at least in part because he was a crummy businessman. No one else compares with Trump. Are people aware that he is still making private deals today, such as in crypto currency? Only he gets to adjust the rules. Both Biden and Obama have gotten crap for their deals. This is about Trump who, who as far as I'm concerned, stands out.
Thank you Laurence. I seem to be having trouble making my point. You have made it very simple. “Most presidents in history have benefitted in some way from having been in office.” I’m not trying to give anyone “crap”.
Trump's net worth fell in his 1st four years, but skyrocketed in the next four mostly from using his name in crypto investments. I would not shed a tear if crypto wealth disappeared the same way it came. Talk about “money for nothing”…
You're welcome. I got your point right away. I admit to being biased where Trump is concerned. I think we tend to over analyze some things to death. I have limited training in either economics or psychology. But I learned to read early in life. The most basic of common sense tells us that no one that has ever been in the White House compares with Trump. To him, the White House is just another business deal, complicated by a self ego that needs others to worship him. To see so many worship him just because they agree with what he is doing and think he actually cares about them is disheartening.
If we are going to indulge in fantasy scenarios about Canada getting incorporated into the US as one or more states, then I will add another positive:
State Health Care. Getting this going is extremely hard. Canada could keep its system and fund it with what would become its state taxes. IMO, the best path to national health care in the US is to have a state implement it successfully. At a national level in the US, the issues of funding and deciding what is covered and what is not are too thorny to overcome. Consider a few years ago when Cook County tried to implement a soda tax. Cook county does operate a hospital, so arguably the health of its citizens is its business, but the blowback was so much that they had to backtrack. I have read the same thing happened in New York.
At some point we as a people will decide that tackling our outrageously expensive healthcare system is more important than using it as a cudgel against those thought to not be working hard enough to improve their lives.
Maybe. There is a strong preference to stay with the "Devil we know". Some hard decisions would have be made, and I would bet there are compromises you would not accept. For example, would you prefer national health care that does not have do abortions, or keep the system we have?
No matter what side you are on of various issues, you would have to accept that there will be times when the government which levies taxes to pay for it and decides on the quality and quantity of service available will be run by people who you very strongly disagree with.
So if you think national healthcare is a good idea in the US, then tell me you would want it implemented, and all of those hard decisions made by the current Congress and President.
Well, even though I don’t want Bobby Brainworm running Medicare and Medicaid, that doesn’t mean I don’t want those programs to continue.
I do want national healthcare for the simple reason it can’t be any worse than the insane way we handle it now.
Plus it would be half the cost, once we rid ourselves of the crooked insurance companies & forced the drug makers to price our drugs the same as they do in Europe. They would then be forced to have price increases in Europe, because we in America are paying for 100% of all research & development of new drugs!
I have no argument with either you or John. Both of you are making good points. The problem as I see it is NIMBY. I am, for the present, set with my medical care. That doesn't stop me from having some sensitivity for those not in my position. I don't need Obamacare. Does that mean I am opposed to it? I remember the problems that existed before Obamacare, of people without insurance flooding emergency rooms and clinics closing left and right. I have personally read comments from conservatives that proper healthcare is not a right, that if people cannot afford to see doctors, they should have run their lives better. Are we becoming that much an uncaring society? I work with homeless. They have medical conditions that have worsened because they can't get the most basic of care or prescriptions. Should they have made better life choices? Absolutely. Most of them would be the first to admit it. So what! I thought we were a caring, Christian nation. That's what MAGAs tell me whenever the discussion arises. Is that what Jesus said- don't help anyone that screwed up their own lives? I've heard the excuses. Canadians have to wait forever for appointments while we have the best care in the world. Explain that to Americans that can't even afford to see a doctor or get a basic prescription until a simple problem becomes an emergency. Actually, the biggest problem I see with Obamacare is that you get what you pay for. The cheapest policies are pretty basic. And many of the basic policy providers are as legitimate as three dollar bills. I deal with it all the time.
Cook County actually did adopt that insane tax on pop. Even Costco, which prides itself on keeping the hot dog & drink combo at $1.50 no matter what, raised the price in its stores in Cook County to $1.65 to cover the extra taxes!
It was a truly stupid tax & I was one who would go to Lake County to buy pop to avoid the tax!
Perhaps we would be better served by considering ways to Incorporate the US into Canada. I think this is no less cuckoo than vice versa. Not that they want us, of course, but we shouldn’t want them either.
LOL. Yeah, that would have some impact on Canadian politics. This reminds of of the South Park season when Mr. Garrison was running for president (as a clear reference to Trump) and wanted to build a wall to keep out Canadians, but then Canada built a wall to keep out Americans first.
That makes sense to me. I've read too many negative stories in my lifetime about American tourists. Why would Canadians want us permanently?
Well, Trump did float the idea of the US joining the Commonwealth...
We already know he's a fan of Hitler and Putin. Should we now add King George III to the list?
If you remember a few weeks back, the British PM presented Trump with an "unprecedented" invitation from King Charles for a SECOND state dinner. I mean, in the hundreds of years the British Empire has existed, nobody has ever been offered a SECOND state dinner.
It doesn't take much to flatter our fat-ass fascist leader...
The problem is, if the US incorporates Canada...where will we move to escape Trump's tyranny?
Greenland can be the place liberals like to pretend they will move.
Your one line about that nut in Huntley having problems with the town over her signs was way too short. She's rabid trumpie & is claiming they're after her because of her insane politics, not because she refuses to follow the established village sign codes & other laws.
Typical wing nut, lying her ass off because she got caught breaking the law.
In other insane news, ICE Barbie is trying to scam a brand new $50 million Gulfstream jet out of the Coast Guard's budget to replace a perfectly good older Gulfstream jet she uses, just because she wants a new one, even the Coast Guard budget is way too small, it has only one functioning ocean going icebreaker right now & needs many new other ships for its tiny fleet.
She really is a garbage excuse for a human!
In a just world, Cricket’s ghost would keep that woman awake, barking in her ears every night for the rest of her miserable life.
"But when I was in 6th grade, my parents could no longer afford...Catholic school tuition... During that period, my seven younger siblings"
I think I see the problem
The Catholic Church tells its parishioners that contraception is a sin, and then conveniently collect tuition from those parishioners for each child attending one of their schools. They don't hold a monopoly on opposing contraception, but they are probably the best at profiting off it.
The same morally superior people who attack trans women for using the bathroom, have a hissy fit over drag queens reading to kids, want to end gay marriage, etc., and now are back to trying to ban pornography over its “prurient content” — those people also voted en masse three times for Donald Trump who bragged about sexually assaulting women and walking in on underage girls as they changed clothes at his beauty pageant, was held liable for raping one woman, and was credibly accused of raping others, including at least one 13-year-old girl as well as his then-wife Ivana.
Those people can sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
I associate myself with your f-bombs.
Not that I want to get pounded on here, but I would welcome some way of making it so that people (kids) can’t get porn at the click of a mouse. Doesn’t that availability cause harm to kids?
What about kids who grow up on farms and see animals copulating, and then later on giving birth? Does it harm those kids to see that? I once saw two giraffes having sex (or trying to) at the Brookfield Zoo. Should the parent who were present have covered their children's eyes?
I will bite my tongue and simply say that there is a difference between animals on a farm or zoo having sex, and what is available online. I am afraid that some of what is online can give kids (especially boys) an unrealistic idea of what to expect from a partner.
One's role as a parent is to TALK with them (not AT them) about sexuality, relationships, respect, and consequences of sex. One can assume that by the age of 10 or so, they have seen some pornography. Then is when you can continue the conversations you have had since they were 2 about sex and broaden the discussion to include the unhealthy aspects of pornography. If you do this without shaming them or guilt-tripping them about having watched it, you will have a chance to reset their expectations.
Kind of sad that by the age of 10 they’ve seen some pornography. That’s the age I was when a neighbor showed me Playboy. But what they can see today can be very disturbing.
Or at least have the giraffes wear g-strings.
I definitely want to see you putting that on a giraffe. They can kick, really well & have actually killed people that way!
True. But wouldn’t it be worth the risk to protect innocent children?
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest parents have a responsibility to keep their kids away from harmful things, and if that means limiting the amount of time said kids spend online or not giving them devices with Internet access before they're old enough, so be it.
Well, yes pornography is not a particularly healthy media content for children. BUT, it is MY job as a parent to determine what my child reads, sees, interacts with, etc. I did not and will not outsource my parenting decisions to that rabid bunch of "Christians" who are hyper-focused on other people's genitalia and what they are doing with them.
I have always wondered about online providers posting warnings about prurient content and underage not allowed to enter. How do they know whose hands are on the mouse or looking at the screen? If they did know, would that raise some pretty serious privacy concerns?
You're missing the point, John. Wouldn't you much rather have a hetero sex pervert reading to your children or using the same bathroom? There wouldn't be any point to Trump reading to your kids. Would the vocabulary level of the books be too high?
The only books he would be capable of reading aloud would come from the "Easy Reader" section in the library.
You know, the books with just one word per page & a drawing illustrating the word.
Re The photo of Schawkowsky
How do you get 50/50 split on 357 votes? I guess it rounds down instead of up?
I can;t see the exact vote totals for each answer when using the Substack poll template. One side narrowly won. Maybe 179-178.
IF Canada as a whole became the 51st state, it would eke out California as the most populous state. You'd have to figure that it would add 2 Democratic Senators as well as skew heavily towards Democrat in the House, with 50+ seats should easily shift the balance in the House. Not sure the GOP would be welcoming the political re-alignment. Perhaps the Dems should sarcastically endorse the plan and watch Trumps cronys on Fox be forced to actually state the political calamity it would cause their party.
I heartily agree. I was one of the few that voted that I would like to see Canada joins as 8 states. I answered as I did solely on the basis of US political calculus - rather than the moral correctness of joining the 2 countries. (Canada is a sovereign nation, and the US has absolutely no right to stick its nose into our northern neighbor's business.) But from a US political perspective, like you, I think that a large majority of the new "Canadian" states (except for Alberta - Canada's Texas) would lean heavily towards the democratic/liberal tradition (I use those terms philosophically) and would then fall into the Dem camps - counterbalancing the current right-weighted makeup of the current US states.
I answered similarly, although my focus was less on adding more liberals and more on adding more sane people. Also, I maybe misinterpreted the question to represent a voluntary combination of the two nations, rather than the US unilaterally “taking over”.
I definitely oppose anything that is not agreed to by a vote of the two countries.
In discussion in this forum, I'm only preaching to the choir; none of you readers advocates the U.S. forcibly annexing Canada. But in the Hands Off protest march April 5 in Chicago, I was proud to carry a sign reading 'E. Jean Carroll, Greenland, and Canada agree: "No" means "NO!!!" '
I love it! I can't wait to see the look on Trump's face when someone explains it to him. Even many Canadian conservatives are liberal by American standards.
I remember Dr. Arwady's firing distinctly because I found it so shocking at the time. It was one of Johnson's most Trumpian acts, disposing of an expert so overqualified for her position that we were lucky to have her in the first place.
I couldn't help noticing this headline accompanying an op-ed in today's NYT about the firing of the librarian of Congress: "Why do we tear down the best among us and lie about it?" Seems applicable to the Arwady situation -- though I know Mr. Zorn would contend that "lie" is too strong. Maybe.
"I mean, who read the Bible? Not the Catholics I knew." Ha! I'm a churchgoing Catholic and I've made the same observation.
I had to read that silly fictional book in Hebrew School. I still have my copy of Magill's Linear School Bible somewhere. Half the pages are in Hebrew with the English translation on the other side, but the Song of Solomon is solely in Hebrew because the prudes thought we were too young for that "porn"!
It’s because most if not all of the Jews I knew growing up (I was one) didn’t seem to believe in God or the Bible, that when I got serious about faith I became Catholic.
In my neighborhood- West Pullman- I knew of only 3 other Jewish families. I learned early in life that my people killed Jesus. Or was it me personally? I have trouble remembering traumatic events?
I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Dogma where Linda Fiorentino is sitting in Mass with a bunch of bored parishioners doing anything but paying attention to the sermon.
My mother was surprised when, post-vatican II, we were encouraged to actually read the Bible on our own. When she was growing up, even nuns were discouraged from reading the Bible except under the supervising eye of priests...
The rigid hierarchy of the Catholic church has always been about control and telling people what they need to believe as opposed to encouraging a personal relationship with God. Although it was a good number of decades ago, I intended a Catholic grade school, high school and completed at my degree studies at a Catholic university, and never had a single class on Scripture. If people were reading Scripture, they may actually learn more about things the Catholic Church deliberately avoids like the fact that Peter who is recognized by the Catholic Church as the first pope, was undeniably a married man with specific Scriptural references to Jesus healing his mother-in-law, and Peter traveling with his wife to the Christian communities. And that would cast shade on the Catholic doctrine of mandatory celibacy for the priesthood which was promulgated by the church to capture the wealth of medieval Bishops who in many cases had their own castles and armies.
Part of the reason that Luther was seen as such a serious threat to Catholic hierarchy control was that he translated the Bible into German to make it available for everyday people to read, where is it had been pretty much available only to people who read Greek or Latin. As an Evangelical, I now see Scripture as God's revelation of himself to us in this world, and my daily scripture reading is one of the most peaceful moments of my day.
The Catholic Church in my opinion has gotten better in that regard. Feel free to have another look.
Hi Phillip - I agree with you on that. Most of my family and many of my friends are people of good heart who continue to identify as Catholic, and I know that some of them have been in study groups at their church. My study of the history of Catholicism revealed that a great deal of Doctrine - Purgatory, the Inquisition, mandatory celibacy to name a few, have no scriptural basis and were promulgated for purposes of acquiring wealth and power for the church. Insistence on the maintenance of priestly celibacy, when Pew Research revealed that fewer than 50% of priest actually remain celibate, resulted in a priest shortage, the admission of pedophiles to seminaries and the worldwide cover up of priestly pedophile abuse. When an organization's worldwide response right up to the very top to criminally sinful activities was to protect the institution instead of protecting the victims, there is
something gravely wrong.
Leo may prove to be a very good leader. And there are many wonderful Bishops and Priests with Christian hearts, and of course, millions of Catholic people with wonderful Christian hearts. But the doctrine being taught is very flawed, and the organization is in need of reformation. So my faith journey has led me to a church that teaches non-judgmental loving acceptance of all based upon Scripture teaching.
There’s an old saying “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. We should all strive to not be the weakest link in what ever group we are in. Also, some people (in religion or politics) believe that the ends justify the means, but those means often hurt people and/or drive them away.
Good Morning Phillip - two very good points that I would find it impossible to disagree with. Have a great day!
You realize of course, David, that by exposing hypocrisy you probably just offended a number of people. Faith is a lovely word- until you remember that it can also mean don't think for yourself and simply accept things you don't understand.
Hey Laurence - it's never my intent to offend anyone. And I readily recognize that there are many clergy and people who identify as Catholic who have beautiful Christian hearts. But after experiencing the rigid dogma and understanding the troublesome history of the organization, I am compelled to call out how the organization and some of the hierarchy have subverteded the organizational purported purpose of faith and God for purposes of power and control. The worldwide priest pedophile scandal provided clear example of that.
I do not judge anyone, and certainly do not intend to besmirch anyone who identifies as Catholic. But just as I enjoy a respectful debate of political views with people
differing with me, I am happy to engage in theological debate on religious doctrine and practices. My personal belief is that our possibility of eternal life with God after we leave this world is wholly dependent upon developing a personal relationship with God and accepting his free gift of Grace. And that is what I wish for everyone!
Two things, David. Religion is the type of touchy subject where it is easy of offend others, whether or not you meant to do it. True believers don’t question anything, especially negative interpretations of their beliefs. Second, it is much like those that use selected quotes from the Founding Fathers to justify their political beliefs. We can’t question the authors of the Bible. They are dead. Based on language differences and differences in interpretation, we can’t even be sure exactly what they said and meant. I realize you meant to educate. It doesn’t matter. You took on a dangerous subject. Fortunately most in this forum are intelligent enough and open minded enough to allow it.
Laurence - I recognize that you are totally correct my friend. Growing up Catholic, we were admonished not to talk about religion or precisely that reason.
But I'd like to make a distinction between religion which I think pertains to an organized set of beliefs and doctrines that come primarily from religious denominations, and Faith which I Define as a personal relationship with God. People who affiliate with denominations all too often get tied up into the denominational doctrines as opposed to personal faith relationship. It is for that reason that I believe virtually every mainstream religious denomination has been losing membership over recent decades while non-denominational churches that emphasize personal relationship with God are growing by Leaps and Bounds across the country.
When I engage in discussion on faith, it is not at all about proselytizing people to a particular set of beliefs. Rather, it is exploring relationship with god. This is something that is the most precious thing I have in this world that gives me undeniable Joy in every season of my life. And for this reason I hope to share this Joy with others. As well as what I believe to be the path to Eternal salvation through that faith relationship.
Sorry for going on about this, but it is something I do find much happiness in discussing with others. I wish you a wonderful day and weekend my friend!
I should know better than to get into this discussion with anyone as religious as you. My point about faith is people automatically accepting things that may not even make sense to them. We are supposed to do this because no one knows the workings of God. We are also taught that in the Jewish faith. I glad you are happy with your faith and that it offers you something joyous. I guess I am simply too rational and think too much. To me the most positive thing about religion in general is offering a moral basis for how to treat each other. Atheists would claim this could be done through ordinary common sense. I think history proves otherwise. Either way, I can’t automatically accept everything on faith, however you wish to describe it.
Of course, if the Republican anti-porn law is passed, the Bible might have to be banned, what with its numerous stories of rape and incest.
I read the Bible cover-to-cover the summer I was 10. By the end, it confirmed that I couldn't believe any of it.
The idea of annexing Canada is a ludicrous populist talking point, inspired by Trump's admiration of Putin. We should not be dignifying it by serious discussion. Even before we get to a "fairness test", which has never been much of a hurdle for people working in and supporting this administration, there should be a sanity test, which this idea fails immediately. Why not annex Russia? Sarah Palin can see it from her house! It will never and should never happen.
So what if he keeps repeating it? This is Trump's well-practiced skill at shifting the Overton window - repeat a ridiculous thought until people start discussing it as if it was normal. This is how we got presidential immunity. We should not keep falling for it.
If we talk about US state populations, we should address the Senate and the Electoral College first: a super majority of 60 Senators are only representing about 40% of US population, with the power to stop any legislation, and with Washington DC and Puerto Rico not having any representation in that chamber. A Montana resident's vote for president is worth about three times that of a California resident's. We should address these problems first before talking about drastically expanding territory and population.
Hey, I think the idea if annexing Russia has great appeal. Lots of natural resources and a quick conclusion of the war against Ukraine. Then we could think about annexing Ukraine … …
To really understand it, a reading of history is necessary. What was the Monroe Doctrine and just how did we go about appropriating a good deal of the Southwest, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, Samoa, Native American land, and others I may have left out? Wanting to take over Canada and Greenland doesn't excuse Trump. But it's not exactly new in American history.
Sure, that used to be the way of the world when powerful nations took over land and populations by force or coercion. We're not in those times anymore, we've come to appreciate the stability of borders and sovereign countries with their own entrenched national identities, systems of government, customs of doing trade and business, etc. Historical precedent can be a very poor argument - we used to have slavery also, no one would even think to propose bringing that back now.
You’re preaching to the choir. Now explain it to Trump.
I totally agree that the firing of Arwady was such an obviously vindictive act as a payback for her for push to open schools against the CTU's desire to work from home. So Trumpian!! But the problem of "not getting into the weeds of when schools should have been reopened" is a mistake made by journalists, as well as all Democrats and the Biden administration. If Democrats in congress, or the Biden administration's CDC would have done a transparent and scientific look at the decisions made in managing Covid it would have shown the voters that they really did "follow the science" and help us all learn lessons for future pandemics. It would have helped de-fang the far right to show that Democratic governing bodies could evaluate scientific data and admit mistakes and might have increased support for the vaccines and the wearing of masks. At what point in a pandemic is it so widespread that closeings even matter would be good to know for the future? The learning loss and mental health toll for kids has been well documented. The fact that the majority of school districts had opened up throughout the suburbs and nation with no negative affects, while the CTU was still insisting on closings was ridiculous to most parents and voters.
And about his disagreement with Arwady over mental health policy, I wish someone would do an in-depth look at the effectiveness of the reopening of the clinics vs. the Rahm and Lightfoot model of delivering services citywide through the not-for-profit agencies. Other than hiring more city employees, spending on fixed structures, and future pensions costs, are the numbers of clients being served actually increasing or decreasing? Are outcomes any different?
I find it weird that there is not a definitive book on COVID and the response that looks at these issues. If there is someone tell me.
Mike Janssen is a Chicagoland treasure. His warm delivery and down-home style is exceeded only by his choice of just the right words to best best describe what is and will be happening weather-wise. He is hands-down the best in his profession currently on local air, and (IMHO) should have succeeded Tom Skilling as WGN's prime meteorologist.
Would someone kindly explain the “Packers” quip for those of us who don’t really follow football (especially off-season). Given the quip’s ranking, I must not be alone. Or maybe it just isn’t very funny.
And while I’m at it, while I would never suggest limiting expressions of contempt for Elon Musk, “Quip of the Week” is hardly the “new” name for this feature any more.
And now back to serious business… …
The Pope is a Bears fan*
*allegedly
I don't agree with banning porn generally of course, but I gotta say that I'm pretty sympathetic with attempts to rein it in. See this, for example, from NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof about that lovely Canadian company, Pornhub:
The "supposedly 'wholesome Pornhub' attracts 3.5 billion visits a month, more than Netflix, Yahoo or Amazon. Pornhub rakes in money from almost three billion ad impressions a day. One ranking lists Pornhub as the 10th-most-visited website in the world.
"Yet there’s another side of the company: Its site is infested with rape videos. It monetizes child rapes, revenge pornography, spy cam videos of women showering, racist and misogynist content, and footage of women being asphyxiated in plastic bags. A search for 'girls under18' (no space) or '14yo' leads in each case to more than 100,000 videos. Most aren’t of children being assaulted, but too many are."
The article goes on to describe a site that caters to sicko misogynistic depravity that harms real people. Big green light on this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HU8.4j2C.wbgHQrSt1-St&smid=url-share
Material is more disgusting -- much more of it would surely qualify as "obscene" under First Amendment standards if anyone tried to enforce that line -- and far more widely available and incredibly easily available to kids like never before. This is a new world, and it's probably messing people up, especially young guys, who increasingly waste their lives playing video games and watching porn.
I don't know enough about proposed solutions and/or how well they would work, but I think seeking to rein in the current porn free-for-all -- especially as it relates to kids' access and unauthorized and/or actually criminal content -- would be a great and politically popular idea. Unpopular opinion?
Speaking of Canada, I said I would welcome annexing Canada for the simple reason that I interpreted the question as assuming that they would *want* to join the U.S. in this hypothetical. Why wouldn't we want to adopt Canada? It's a lovely, thriving place with lots of lovely people. It would be economically beneficial. And, if, like me, you're a Democrat, you would be very happy to add 8 blue states! The healthcare issue would be a tangle. I imagine that Canadian "states" would continue to administer their current programs in some form. I'm sure there are complications I'm not thinking of but, on a first cut, I can't really see any downside from a U.S. perspective.
I readily agree that there are problems with exploitation and access when it comes to porn.
My beef is with sanctimonious hypocrites who have nothing better to do than police the private interests of people obviously less pious than themselves.
Since the dawn of civilization, humans have depicted nudity and sex acts in various ways, from artwork on display in museums to middle school bathroom stalls. And since the advent of photography, and especially smartphones, people have willingly posed for pictures and videos of themselves naked and/or getting it on. Those trying to put an end to it might as well be tilting at windmills.
JakeH, there are already laws prohibiting possession of child pornography, revenge porn, photographing people in the shower without their consent, sexual assault, and the other bad things you cite in regard to porn hub. So this law proposed by Republicans is not about making those things unlawful. It’s about making it illegal to show, or possess, or watch anything which “appeals to the prurient interest in [among other things] sex.” Now I looked up “prurient” and it is defined as “having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.” Now I don’t consume things very often which appeal to the prurient interest in sex. I suppose in the last ten years, maybe twice? I watched the coming of age movie Blue Is The Warmest Color on Netflix, and I’m currently reading The Rosy Crucifixion trilogy by Henry Miller. Blue Is The Warmest Color had a number of very beautiful and very explicit lesbian sex scenes. And, of course, Henry Miller, one of my favorite authors and thinkers, includes detailed descriptions of his sexual exploits (including detailed descriptions of his penis and his sexual partners’ vaginas and labia in various states) along with absolutely beautiful stream of consciousness and philosophy, in his partly autobiographical novels that seek to tell and explain the meaning and mysteries of the human condition.
This Republican proposed law really seems to be all about control, and seems to be related to their obsession about controlling female sexuality. They want women to have sex only for purposes of procreation. So they want to outlaw books and movies with a prurient interest in sex, outlaw abortion, outlaw contraception, etc.
Sexual intimacy and the desire and need for sexual intimacy is a part of the human condition. It’s wild; it’s beautiful; it’s mysterious, and it’s lovely. And this law, which seeks to regulate, limit, and control how people express themselves about this very personal aspect of what it means to be human is really fascism on steroids.
It's always about control.
I agree with just about everything you say. I should have made clear that I'm not in favor of a general obscenity ban, which would be too vague to police and have an unacceptable chilling effect.
Slight disagreement perhaps: I hear you say at the outset that we already have adequate laws on this subject. I doubt it for two reasons: One, it's too easy for kids to access very dark and explicit material. Two, it's too easy to post, disseminate, find, and download videos that depict real criminal activity, videos the app directs users to and profits from. That's what the article was about.
Would you support a law similar to Utah's that requires age verification for Utah users of adult sites? Pretty sure I would. While it's true that you can get around location restrictions with a VPN, it's probably easier for parents to block VPN use on their kids' devices than to block all adult sites. Pornhub decided to block access to all Utah addresses rather than comply with the law and face potential liability. To which I say fine.
As to the second point, I have what I fear may be a very unpopular opinion, but I lean toward treating platforms more like "publishers," like newspapers, who have some legal responsibly for what they publish (for example, for libel), and less like common carriers, like the mail or the phone, where they have zero liability for the content of the materials or communications they deliver. Our laws now treat platforms like the latter, as I understand it. But none of the major user-generated content platforms, like Pornhub, are merely passive bulletin boards. Rather, they actively *curate*. Their ability to curate is better than ever with AI, I assume, and they will deploy those tools to the maximum extent to generate engagement and thus profits.
That sounds like "publishing" to me. I suggest that they should be required -- consistent with state-of-the-art technology -- to use those same tools to block, flag, whatever suspicious material and be held to a high standard. I'm not saying that they must guarantee perfect results. No system of content moderation is perfect, and there's too much content to moderate by hand. But we could hold them to their procedures and practices. As things stand, I suspect there's a lot of looking the other way, a lot of, hey, it's not our problem.
From the Kristof piece:
"After a 15-year-old girl went missing in Florida, her mother found her on Pornhub — in 58 sex videos. Sexual assaults on a 14-year-old California girl were posted on Pornhub and were reported to the authorities not by the company but by a classmate who saw the videos....
"I came across many videos on Pornhub that were recordings of assaults on unconscious women and girls. The rapists would open the eyelids of the victims and touch their eyeballs to show that they were nonresponsive.
"Pornhub profited this fall from a video of a naked woman being tortured by a gang of men in China. It is monetizing video compilations with titles like 'Screaming Teen,' 'Degraded Teen' and 'Extreme Choking.' Look at a choking video and it may suggest also searching for 'She Can’t Breathe.'
"It should be possible to be sex positive and Pornhub negative."
I agree.
I find what I hear about platforms these days -- even non-porn ones like X -- extremely disturbing. Videos of actual deaths for example, for people to gawk at and laugh at. A popular subreddit some years ago was called "Watch People Die," and included countless actual violent deaths, but don't worry -- deaths of children would not be depicted, unless it was accidental that is. One video posted: a teen killing himself with a shotgun on YouTube live with the video lingering on the scene for a half hour until his mom found him.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/12/reddit-r-watch-people-die
Another site depicting actual murders discussed here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w1z248145o
I admit that I don't know how to do it exactly -- I need to think more about it and know more about it -- but I'm inclined to, as I say, rein in the tsunami of coarse shit that the digital age has unleashed, at least somewhat more than we do already, but still within First Amendment limits. I suspect it's possible.
I think the enormous challenges faced by social media platforms trying (and failing spectacularly) to moderate content is instructive here. For starters, back when sites like Facebook actually tried to tackle the problem they had employees wading through that tsunami of shit as you put it, and those employees in many cases were left traumatized by the experience. So that wasn't sustainable.
Maybe AI could help, but again someone would have to find objectionable content to train the AI on first, then monitor its effectiveness at tracking down and culling such content. That might not be sustainable either.
Yes, I read those stories. The fact that it's so traumatizing to review what platforms publish that it verges on unethical to ask anyone to do it I think might support rather than refute my intuitions here. It suggests that the platforms are just that "unsafe." I don't like the overuse of that word these days, but here I think it's apt. I've heard on numerous occasions that vile content, death videos for example, is delivered to one's, say, X feed -- an apt word; we're as pigs at the trough, maws agape -- without asking and without viewing habits that would seem to suggest it.
I don't know enough about how hard it would be to use AI here or if it would require much human interaction with the content. As I say, I don't have a specific policy. I like the sound of the EARN IT Act, I must admit, but I would be open to counterarguments on any specific policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EARN_IT_Act
My thought is just, is this really beyond our capabilities to regulate? I'm pretty skeptical.
I got around to finally reading the Kristof article you posted, and I can't argue with the recommendations he made, such as only allowing uploads from verified accounts and barring downloads. Add to that a requirement that all persons seen in the video are certified over 18 and consent to the video being posted (which is required for professional porn productions already). That would at least start to rein in the exploitation side of the issue.
As for limiting kids' viewing the material, I still say that's the job of parents, but good luck with that. My friends and I regularly found ways to get our hands on magazines like Playboy and Penthouse before we were even teenagers, so I can imagine trying to stop kids from finding or viewing such videos/pictures today would be no small task.
I liked the sound of those ideas too, but I share Kristof's uncertainty about the workability of various solutions. I just think we should be working on it. As for kids' access, yes, you could circumvent restrictions of yore -- you could try to buy a Playboy and hope the young clerk didn't care, you could shoplift one, you could steal one from grandpa's stash, a kid in 6th grade could pass it around, not admitting to any of those or to being that kid -- but Playboy, even Penthouse, is/was ludicrously quaint by today's standards. We're talking now about material no Kroch's & Brentano's would ever sell! I mean, years ago, I would have been like, yes, Playboy subscriptions for all 13-year-olds, and be sure to read the Norman Mailer interview and the John Updike short story, I'll expect a report at dinner. It's a much different world. I'm not sure that age verification online + kid-friendly devices that bar VPNs wouldn't work.
JakeH, I always get such interesting replies from you! You say you are against a general obscenity ban, but that’s exactly what this law proposed by the Republicans is. It would make it illegal to show, or possess, or watch anything which “appeals to the prurient interest in [among other things] sex.”
At the end of the day, if we are talking about what sexual materials people show, author, watch, see, or read, it is my view that it is up to individuals, including parents and children, to decide what they want to see, watch, or read. We police ourselves, and, as parents, depending on the age of our children, we police our children. But I think the best way to have kids grow up with a healthy understanding about sex and its consequences, is to have frank, open, and honest discussions with them about sex, its physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences, the necessity of consent, and so forth.
I’m sticking to my view that this proposed Republican law is all about control of women.
Changing the law so that internet sites may be held liable for torts such as invasion of privacy, defamation, and the like is an entirely different concept which, if such a change in the law were drafted appropriately, I might not oppose.
It seems I still haven't made myself clear, which I'm sure is entirely my fault. My initial post was not intended in any way to voice agreement with this particular proposed law, which I do not agree with at all for the reasons you say and I affirmed at the beginning of my reply. It is indeed a general obscenity ban, which I oppose.
I meant to quickly move past this particular bad law to the general issue involved -- that of regulation of materials that may fall into that obscenity category or may be adjacent to it (either better, as in, merely dark, icky porn, or worse, actual rape videos), particularly as it relates to kids' easy access to it and platforms' promotion of videos of actual sex crimes.
So, while I don't agree with this law, I see more than a kernel of truth to real concerns that might underlie it, and I'm not satisfied that our current laws are adequate to meet the problem. I don't think we should look at the current situation as we may be used to looking at it. That is, these stuffed shirts just want to control people's lives, probably because they're repressing and projecting their own depraved hearts, and they should just learn to be cool. And the kids thing is just an excuse.
That may well describe many people on "that side," but it doesn't describe me at all. At least, I hope not! Put it this way: it seemed very reasonable to me to restrict kids' purchase of porn in yesteryear. Since then, the porn has gotten worse -- with a decidedly and more ubiquitously vile, gleefully misogynistic and violent and degrading edge, so I'm given to believe, not to mention the truly criminal acts -- while at the same time it's become exceedingly easy to access it without restriction. That, to me, suggests a need to recalibrate, to revisit the rules of the road to move in the direction of achieving the non-onerous regulation of yesteryear but translated, insofar as possible, to today's world. I merely throw out these intuitions, including that it must be possible to do that within the First Amendment.
I'm proud that the Quip of the Week I recognize as funniest is only recognized as such by 5% of voters. I'm in the upper 5%!